User:Kt1628/Uranium mining and the Navajo people/AA07232021 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

kt1628


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kt1628/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Uranium mining and the Navajo people

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead includes an introductory sentence that meets this criteria.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes this Lead introduces the topics that will be in the major article sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is not overly detailed nor concise, it is in the middle but more towards concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It definitely addresses a topic related to an underrepresented population/topic

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not heavily biased, but I do sense that there is a bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * the viewpoint is that the article is written from is neither over or under represented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not really, only one part of a grammar error
 * "to protect workers FROM the known dangers related"

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This content definitely adds to the overall quality of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adds another event that happened due to the topic

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"

Peer review of this article about a famous painting